More absurd than the notion such incitement warrants no notice?
Joel Send a noteboard - 20/01/2011 05:42:47 PM
I find it difficult to believe the Secret Service would respond to a credible public threat against a US Congressman with "Sorry, we're only legally authorized to protect the President, VP, candidates for those offices and their families, so we can't help you--but we'll request an executive order on your behalf and call your local police to let them know an Al Qaeda hit squad is on the way! " Perhaps I'm wrong about that; the meaning of of "legally authorized" makes all the difference here, and if that makes it ILLEGAL for them to provide anyone else protection (as bizarre as that sounds) I'll eat my words. ONLY mine though; I read and fully understood your statement, as my response at the time indicates, yet you incorrectly stated I misread you because YOU misread ME. Yeah, I understand your frustration QUITE well; hopefully you're beginning to grasp mine....
Legally authorized does not mean Illegal in the way you are taking it, no.
Joel, I repeat, SS has no specific power over congress, I already gave you the actual text of their mandate. The US Capitol Police are charged with protecting congress, and yes they do have concurrent jurisdiction. If the SS caught in a phone call about a threat to anyone's life, same as any other LE, they'd contact the people who had jurisdiction, because we have jurisdiction for many reason, one of which is those people are best equipped to handle the problem, for Local LE 'equipped' means 'there and numerous' which is why they so often consult with federal agencies who have specific applicable expertise, this is one of the reasons for concurrent jurisdiction. The SS is not an omnipresent group of super-troopers. They're pretty small, every federal department has its own LE branch for that matter, from the VA to the US Park Police. They all have jurisdictions, they all can do like any LE and stop major crimes in action, they all can contact the LEOs who have jurisdiction, they can all, from local PD up, arrest under hot or 'fresh' pursuit. I hear your frustration, because if the case you offer as an example were possible it would merit frustration, but its not, hence my frustration at having to tell someone how jurisdiction works. This is not a debate over how it functions or should function, this is simple cold hard fact and your basically saying "Oh yeah, well if cops can't arrest outside their jurisdiction and see a crazed gunmen then they can't do anything", the n-teenth time I say "Yes, of course they can, the law totally permits this". Forgetting geography for the moment, any LE can arrest in hot pursuit or if they have a warrant (typically only in state) but any and all officers can always arrest someone using citizens arrest powers - that covers any felony in action, they can act if they witness a felony - when a cop from NY busts someone in PA for waving around a gun at a fair they were attending off duty, it just counts as a citizens arrest. This is done all the time, its the legal route for out of jurisdiction emergency situations. Of course SS has a big jurisdiction, they are Federal Officers, so hot pursuit is irrelevant in their case.
None of the current rules allow any absurd cases like you propose, the SS is not the agency responsible for protecting congressmen, that's the US Capitol Police and whichever other LE groups have geographic jurisdiction. This is totally unrelated to not bothering to call in a crime. So if the SS stumbles across a credible threat to a congressmen they can act as appropriate, but not because the person is a member of congress, they can do the same for you or me. LE, in any form, generally do not ignore felonies, this does not mean that they can or do send their own LEOs to deal with a case that's not under their mandate. If SS stumbles across a group threatening to kill me, my congressmen, and POTUS, but decides the threat to POTUS was unreal but the one on me and my congressmen was, they can contact our local PD and the US Capitol Police, that one of the two fellows involved was an elected official is relevant only because they regularly work in proximity to USCP. There exact procedure is likely to vary from LE group to LE group and based on the severity and immediacy of the issue. Almost like someone with common sense wrote the rules. Jurisdictional infighting is a real thing, but generally over-dramatized and hyped in TV and novels for, well, good plot. As things are, if a threat came down from them about a congressmen (or anyone else) fairly soon thereafter a local uniformed LEO would roll up to that persons house to make sure they were okay at that moment, because they are nearest, and with immediacy removed jurisdiction would be sorted out. And if the tumbled out to a terrorist hit squad in action they would do what any other LE would do, contact everybody, though I believe nowadays they would contact HomeSec who would do this for them and coordinate. This would generally involve local LE, because they have jurisdiction and lots of people and guns right there.
You are welcome to continue objecting to this, I don't know why or on what grounds, to the best of my knowledge this is simple fact and at worst a LE expert might adjust a piece.
That WAS the original claim, you may recall; now we're debating who'd respond, which indicates we agree SOMEONE would. Saying, "local police would respond, not the Secret Service" rather misses my point that a prompt and serious response WOULD be made. I think it's implausible so say the Secret Service would simply notify others of a credible threat against a Congressman then leave it to them, but you seem to be disputing the details of my argument, not its import. Regardless, I didn't miss your statement that local law enforcement rather than the Secret Service would respond, I explicitly acknowledged it in full while disagreeing and you missed the acknowledgement.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
OK, I'm Officially Sick of the "Blood Libel" BS.
16/01/2011 12:18:22 PM
- 1988 Views
Why are they calling it "blood libel"?
16/01/2011 12:23:47 PM
- 851 Views
Because if the facts were as they represent them those words would be applicable.
16/01/2011 12:49:22 PM
- 1027 Views
It's not entirely clear to me whether you're aware of this or not, but...
16/01/2011 01:12:22 PM
- 1072 Views
I think Alan Dershowitz dealt with this nonsense already
16/01/2011 02:34:10 PM
- 1365 Views
Interesting. I didn't realize it was so wide-spread.
16/01/2011 03:10:28 PM
- 925 Views
She wasn't even the first to use the term that week either
16/01/2011 10:10:35 PM
- 928 Views
I don't know that "expert" has anything to do with it.
16/01/2011 10:18:54 PM
- 956 Views
Oh please don't you start to
17/01/2011 02:34:43 PM
- 808 Views
I for one hadn't noticed it before.
17/01/2011 10:25:57 PM
- 979 Views
it was used here and nobody commented
17/01/2011 10:37:07 PM
- 867 Views
LOL, I totally forgot that got posted here
17/01/2011 10:54:26 PM
- 919 Views
It's funny you should say that...
18/01/2011 10:32:59 PM
- 951 Views
Precisely: I noticed, but it hadn't become a rallying cry for "the real victim" (Palin).
19/01/2011 12:14:48 AM
- 1059 Views
I thought you were the real vicitim
19/01/2011 02:49:06 PM
- 1032 Views
When and where did I say that? The ultimate victim is America, but six members of it just died.
19/01/2011 11:24:27 PM
- 753 Views
Re: It's funny you should say that...
19/01/2011 03:29:52 PM
- 937 Views
It was permissible to ignore until it became a rallying cry.
20/01/2011 04:27:23 PM
- 961 Views
Oh, I noticed that one alright.
18/01/2011 10:25:23 PM
- 791 Views
but is he accussed of being a tasteless moron who doesn't know what it means?
19/01/2011 02:28:03 PM
- 837 Views
I don't know, if I have to judge him based on that one article, then tasteless moron, absolutely.
19/01/2011 06:14:43 PM
- 950 Views
The peole who called her stupid for using the term didn't know it was so wide spread either
17/01/2011 02:33:19 PM
- 810 Views
Indeed, my response to Legolas references Wikipedias quotation of him.
16/01/2011 10:24:09 PM
- 1004 Views
Re: Indeed, my response to Legolas references Wikipedias quotation of him.
16/01/2011 11:09:21 PM
- 1033 Views
Again, Giffords specifically made the connection between Palins imagery and an attack on her.
17/01/2011 12:53:08 AM
- 1172 Views
That means precisely nothing
17/01/2011 03:59:07 PM
- 870 Views
It means everything.
18/01/2011 08:34:55 PM
- 1139 Views
I'm trying to understand your logic
19/01/2011 12:50:28 AM
- 744 Views
There are two points:
19/01/2011 02:47:48 AM
- 931 Views
I don't agree, but I understand. *NM*
19/01/2011 10:14:13 PM
- 458 Views
Giffords' statements and Palins are matters of public record; they're indisputable.
19/01/2011 11:34:53 PM
- 908 Views
I must say, if more people on both sides could say that we'd all be better for it.
20/01/2011 04:32:55 AM
- 951 Views
the old step one steal underwear step three profit argument
19/01/2011 06:01:14 PM
- 1024 Views
Your inability/unwillingness to follow basic and clearly delineated logic is not my failing.
20/01/2011 01:19:31 AM
- 845 Views
I admit I can't follow gnome logic *NM*
20/01/2011 05:50:22 AM
- 447 Views
I demonstrated the connection, whether or not you choose to look the other way.
20/01/2011 03:16:28 PM
- 922 Views
that is some twisted and bizarre logic
17/01/2011 02:38:41 PM
- 968 Views
Giffords said Palins crosshairs imagery would have "consequences"; Palin calls the suggestion libel.
18/01/2011 08:54:45 PM
- 861 Views
yes but the only consequences is liberals using them to slander Palin
19/01/2011 02:58:35 PM
- 942 Views
I read Toms reply; I don't think he exactly vindicated your position, nor meant to do so.
20/01/2011 01:52:37 AM
- 1177 Views
It was an example of blaming the victim, a phrase you keep misusing
20/01/2011 06:28:21 PM
- 882 Views
I thought you said only liberals blinded by political bias committed that grave sin.
20/01/2011 07:47:09 PM
- 930 Views
so in other words you again missed the point
20/01/2011 08:26:49 PM
- 879 Views
Well, one of us did.
20/01/2011 09:24:35 PM
- 993 Views
so lets be clear do you or don't you understand what it means to "blame the vicitm"?
20/01/2011 10:03:48 PM
- 635 Views
I understand it well; can we be equally clear you say the victim here is Palin?
20/01/2011 10:44:08 PM
- 1068 Views
So I am a little confused on something...
16/01/2011 02:38:59 PM
- 1025 Views
Palin putting Giffords district in the crosshairs and Giffords implying at the time she feared this
16/01/2011 11:21:36 PM
- 1161 Views
If I understand what you are saying correctly...
17/01/2011 07:07:56 AM
- 897 Views
I'm sorry you so badly misunderstand.
17/01/2011 08:33:47 AM
- 908 Views
Re: I'm sorry you so badly misunderstand.
17/01/2011 04:24:01 PM
- 961 Views
The Secret Service does guard Congressmen, just not all of them automatically.
18/01/2011 09:13:39 PM
- 796 Views
No, they don't
18/01/2011 10:19:34 PM
- 982 Views
Really? Cannoli says differently, and I believe he's right on that one.
18/01/2011 10:50:51 PM
- 1064 Views
You seem to be reading what you want to from what I said
19/01/2011 01:27:32 PM
- 911 Views
I read what you said & understood it as you restate here, hence I referenced local police (twice)
20/01/2011 02:15:17 AM
- 948 Views
The problem here is your ignoring normal policing powers to concoct an absurdity
20/01/2011 04:20:25 PM
- 997 Views
More absurd than the notion such incitement warrants no notice?
20/01/2011 05:42:47 PM
- 1059 Views
really because people post that kind of crap daily and nothing happens
20/01/2011 05:57:52 PM
- 854 Views
I thought waterboarding was OK and any suggestion to the contrary was terrorist sympathizing.
20/01/2011 07:54:05 PM
- 808 Views
way to dodge the point again
20/01/2011 08:34:33 PM
- 816 Views
Do you have an example of a credible threat of injury to a Congressman, or calls for one?
20/01/2011 10:02:53 PM
- 899 Views
Your shifting your original premise, *again*
20/01/2011 08:24:18 PM
- 883 Views
No, you're simply missing the point of it.
20/01/2011 11:09:57 PM
- 880 Views
Uh...Last I checked conservatives didn't list the Communist Manifesto as a favourite book.
16/01/2011 03:05:07 PM
- 1198 Views
Libs hate Mein Kampf and We the Living; conservatives hate the Communist Manifesto: He's neither.
16/01/2011 10:06:02 PM
- 898 Views
conseartives hate Mein Kampf and liberals stil read the Communist Manifesto
17/01/2011 02:57:22 PM
- 876 Views
That first line is says it all.
18/01/2011 09:34:06 PM
- 960 Views
Nazis had more in common with communist then capitalist
19/01/2011 04:10:09 PM
- 1066 Views
The founder of fascism called it "the merger of corporate and national power".
20/01/2011 02:51:09 AM
- 949 Views
It is to be expected that this site would be libtard central...
16/01/2011 05:23:53 PM
- 1153 Views
Again, I don't think Palin intended this, but Giffords feared ten months ago that this could result.
16/01/2011 11:29:19 PM
- 959 Views
And I call bullshit
18/01/2011 03:12:13 PM
- 1100 Views
If Palin wants to accuse Giffords of libel she should have the guts to do it to her face.
18/01/2011 10:39:07 PM
- 1057 Views
So if some jihadist shot Gifford, would you also blame Palin?
19/01/2011 02:52:42 PM
- 942 Views
don't get ti doesn't matter who is to blame it just matters if they can use it *NM*
19/01/2011 04:11:09 PM
- 425 Views
No, I'd blame the shooter first and the mullahs shouting, "JIHAD111" second, as I always do.
20/01/2011 03:11:33 AM
- 1038 Views
Then why are you even here? I pretty much agree with you entirely and I'm fairly liberal. *NM*
18/01/2011 01:16:33 PM
- 534 Views
Palin didn't really have anything to do with this, but it makes sense she's blamed.
16/01/2011 10:19:51 PM
- 877 Views
Did they ever catch the person(s) that vandalized Gifford's office? *NM*
17/01/2011 03:30:36 AM
- 447 Views
I didn't realize someone had, but it appears a militia leader was responsible (shocking, I know).
17/01/2011 07:04:08 AM
- 894 Views
politcal offices are vandalized on a regular basis *NM*
17/01/2011 02:41:29 PM
- 407 Views
She only asked if they caught the guy, she didn't accuse anyone, Sarah.
18/01/2011 11:27:18 PM
- 845 Views
Took you this long, huh?
17/01/2011 01:53:31 PM
- 797 Views
I didn't want to look because I was afraid the charges against the far right demagogues might stick.
18/01/2011 11:07:26 PM
- 1121 Views
I am sick of the desperate attempts of liberals to find a way to use a tragedy
17/01/2011 02:31:18 PM
- 813 Views
I'm just curious.
17/01/2011 03:23:47 PM
- 788 Views
Had that convo with the cab driver on the way home from a New Years party.
18/01/2011 11:42:07 PM
- 1083 Views
If slander, not mine, Giffords' (at least you don't err like Palin and say, "libel" ).
18/01/2011 11:14:23 PM
- 1007 Views
mark you calendar today is the day Joel offically went around the bend into insanity
19/01/2011 05:28:06 PM
- 812 Views
A mirror will show me who's to blame? On whom have I put a crosshairs?
20/01/2011 03:23:43 AM
- 867 Views
so it is all a matter of faith for you
20/01/2011 05:48:44 AM
- 817 Views
No, it's fairly straight forward logic.
20/01/2011 03:25:56 PM
- 921 Views
sorry Joel but you haven't
20/01/2011 03:29:49 PM
- 726 Views
It's there; in this thread alone people from both sides of the aisle have acknowledged that.
20/01/2011 05:51:21 PM
- 819 Views
only in your does the connection exisit
20/01/2011 06:39:35 PM
- 852 Views
No.
20/01/2011 07:35:09 PM
- 932 Views
dude wake up
20/01/2011 08:54:33 PM
- 1073 Views
Fine, I have no problem dropping the "right" label in my condemnations.
20/01/2011 10:39:34 PM
- 1049 Views
Why not just blame Giffords?
17/01/2011 06:07:14 PM
- 1148 Views
Indeed, why not; Sarah Palin does.
18/01/2011 06:58:01 PM
- 967 Views
The left are the ones storing up hate with their pathetic slaner
18/01/2011 07:53:23 PM
- 924 Views
At least 95% of the blame is Loughners; he's a nut, but that doesn't exonerate the demagogues.
18/01/2011 11:24:11 PM
- 1018 Views
0% belongs to political rhetoric from the right
19/01/2011 02:47:56 PM
- 786 Views
Uh huh; it's absurd to mention right wing rhetoric when left wing rhetoric is the OBVIOUS culprit
19/01/2011 02:59:41 PM
- 829 Views
No leftist rhetoric? You just called a bunch of people 'dangeorus lunatics'
19/01/2011 03:37:54 PM
- 798 Views
Rhetoric is one thing, but I didn't use violent imagery, did I?
20/01/2011 01:40:14 AM
- 1122 Views
no but the democratic party used very similar images in the same state
20/01/2011 06:41:19 PM
- 855 Views
It's news to me, but I condemn all violent inflammatory imagery and rhetoric.
20/01/2011 07:13:18 PM
- 825 Views
it was the national democrats
20/01/2011 08:32:01 PM
- 927 Views
Then that's equally dangerous and reprehensible and more reason to loathe the DLC and DCCC.
20/01/2011 09:49:08 PM
- 1196 Views
The right is not the ones claiming rhetoric is the issue
19/01/2011 03:58:39 PM
- 841 Views
"WE aren't doing it, except for when we are". Admission of guilt is a poor defense.
20/01/2011 03:25:16 AM
- 814 Views
The irony of this thread is not lost on me.
19/01/2011 04:09:01 PM
- 991 Views
Bizarre thread for that Soapbox
19/01/2011 05:17:58 PM
- 738 Views
You missed the point, obviously.
19/01/2011 06:04:23 PM
- 847 Views
That I knew it would go this way is why I avoided looking closely for so long.
19/01/2011 11:20:44 PM
- 996 Views
Re: OK, I'm Officially Sick of the "Blood Libel" BS.
22/01/2011 05:49:44 PM
- 1004 Views
We can debate whether it's coincidental, but the connections are documented fact
22/01/2011 08:17:24 PM
- 971 Views